# C_2008037EN.01002401.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/24

---

Action brought on 27 November 2007 — BP Aromatics v Commission

(Case T-429/07)

(2008/C 37/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Sunbury on Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renshaw and G. Bushell, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and any interveners granted leave to intervene in the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and any interveners granted leave to intervene in the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

| — | take any other actions that the Court considers to be appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take any other actions that the Court considers to be appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3202 final of 10 July 2007 by which the Commission found State aid notified by the Portuguese authorities in favour of Artensa (Artenius) for the construction of a new plant for the production of chemical products to be compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) EC.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the rules relating to their application, certain essential procedural requirements and a number of principles of Community law, in that the Commission:

| — | misconstrued and misapplied the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects 2002 (1), which requires an analysis based on the EEA market and not on a worldwide market; |
| --- | --- |

—

misconstrued and misapplied the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects 2002 (1), which requires an analysis based on the EEA market and not on a worldwide market;

1

| — | committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant market for purified terephthalic acid is worldwide when it is, according to the applicant, an EEA-wide market; and |
| --- | --- |

—

committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant market for purified terephthalic acid is worldwide when it is, according to the applicant, an EEA-wide market; and

| — | committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant share of sales of Artensa will be below 25 % when in fact it will exceed 25 % on an EEA-wide basis. |
| --- | --- |

—

committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant share of sales of Artensa will be below 25 % when in fact it will exceed 25 % on an EEA-wide basis.

The applicant alleges that if the Commission had conducted a detailed and proper investigation of the EEA market for purified terephthalic acid, it would have had serious difficulties in determining whether the aid is compatible with the common market which would have made it necessary to open the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

According to the applicant, the fact that the Commission had serious difficulties in assessing the aid during its preliminary investigation and that it should, accordingly, have initiated the formal procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC is corroborated by the length of time elapsed between the notification from the Portuguese authorities and the adoption of the contested decision.

The applicant further contends that its procedural rights were infringed as the Commission did not, as it should have, open a formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC.

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission — Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (notified under document No C(2002) 315) (OJ 2002 C 70, p. 8).

1

---